(no title)
Crysstalis | 3 years ago
Well my point was that it will always be an inferior experience on X11 even though it technically is possible in some circumstance. WM hints only work correctly if the window manager is compositing which many window managers are not, or do not want to add, and some X11 users still seem to insist on not using them... Any attempts to add this to X11 are fighting an uphill battle.
>I suggest try to actual read what people are writing
I did and I believe those replies are following those patterns. Those comments seem unrelated to the other things about backwards compatibility. It is an entirely separate concern.
badsectoracula|3 years ago
Regardless of what you consider "inferior" (again, i do not see anything inferior assuming it is done as i described), the point was that it was possible.
> WM hints only work correctly if the window manager is compositing which many window managers are not, or do not want to add
Compositing is only needed for applications that do not support scaling themselves. There is no compositing necessary for applications that do support scaling, aside from the (literal) edge case of having an application cross two (or more) different monitors of different scale values and wanting to have the same visible area in all of them.
> and some X11 users still seem to insist on not using them...
At the end of the day it is up to users to decide what they want to do with their computers - and deal with pros and cons of their choices, the best developers can do is try to provide options.
If something isn't possible in whatever "perfect" sense one might have, it can still be worth implemented in "good enough" ways. For example i use Window Maker, a window manager without desktop compositing support (aside from a minor use for window thumbnails) the UX of which i like in general despite its flaws in some cases. If i had multiple monitors with mixed DPI, i'd rather stick with WM even if i had to deal with the "window looks too big/small while dragging it between monitors" flaw since i consider the latter a minor issue while switching to a different environment (and all the consequences it may have) a much bigger one.
> I did and I believe those replies are following those patterns. Those comments seem unrelated to the other things about backwards compatibility. It is an entirely separate concern.
Your responses indicate that your beliefs are wrong then. The comment about backwards compatibility are relevant if you are also trying to do that pattern matching against what i write there.
Crysstalis|3 years ago
The issue with this thinking is that those cons eventually cascade back to the developer, if you know for a fact users will use an option that is going to break the intended use case. Window Maker is going to be broken or have a sub par experience with the situation you describe, because that only works with applications that support this method. Old legacy applications with no scaling support will still need support from the window manager. So that is a perfect illustration of why that solution is inferior and can never work correctly if you want to take this angle of "I can make whatever choice I want, including the broken ones".
>Your responses indicate that your beliefs are wrong then
I do not think so, your additional writings have drifted further from that subject. I should remind you, this thread is a discussion of GNOME, not Window Maker.